What Do Children Really Need to Learn at School?

Every now and then this comes up again on social media. Someone posts a complaint that schools are WASTING CHILDREN’S TIME teaching UNNECESSARY KNOWLEDGE!

In one version, the meme claims that we only need to know how to grow food, filter water, etc. to survive. And teachers (how dare they!) are teaching children about the beauty of literature, the lessons of history and the wonders of science. Because, of course, if you’re growing food, you’ll never need a working knowledge of genetics, or if you’re filtering water, you’ll never want to know what pathogens are and how they spread…

Another, similar, meme claims that teachers (oh, how dare they!) are introducing the next generation to algebra or geometry instead of teaching them to fill in tax forms. How terrible to think of children visualising the mathematical properties of the universe when they could be staring at a tax form! 

Or again, there’s the claim that teachers (ohh, the monsters!) are trying to impart to children the powers of reading and writing when the children would rather be gaming or texting. A student responds aggressively when asked to turn their attention from their phone to their lesson? That’s clear evidence that education is failing to comply with children’s wishes!

And the thing that troubles me most is how much traction these posts get. The likes, the shares, the delighted comments: “I new I wad never need to no that stuff” and “Id of mist scowl all together if theyd of let me”, etc.

I have a terrible habit of throwing myself into the fray. Throwing my pebbles at the tide. Throwing down the gauntlet. Throwing my hat into the ring.
​
“Your grandchildren,” I explain as politely as I feel able, “are going to be Flat Earthers. Mine are not, because I have parented my sons upon different principles. (I read to them as soon as they could sit; I discussed their learning with them and showed them how to take it further.) But yours will be Flat Earthers, because you don’t believe that knowledge has any intrinsic value. You don’t think your children should be learning anything beyond the prosaic necessities of everyday existence. You don’t think it’s worthwhile for your children to broaden their minds, to gain any understanding of the world that doesn’t have any immediate material value. Your children will bring up their own children, on similar principles, until your grandchildren, or maybe your great-grandchildren, are content to suppose that the Earth is flat and the Moon is made of green cheese.” 

It’s hyperbole, of course, but I think it’s true enough in its way. Conspiracy theories are (arguably) gaining ground and literacy is nosediving. One common cause could be the way in which education has become everyone’s football. Politicians whack it around to gain votes; tech companies look upon schools as their marketplace; the narrowest-minded and the most poorly-educated members of the public consider themselves best qualified to redesign the curriculum.
​
As a teacher, as a parent and as a thinking member of society, I’m defending the principle of offering every child a broad general education that includes a foundation for whatever future they might choose. A curriculum that supports an understanding of the self and the wider world. Knowledge and experiences that develop the awareness and imagination. An education that opens possibilities instead of ticking the boxes of minimal functionality.

---

When my children were young, I read to them every evening, literature and history, science and French. As it happened, neither of them developed a love for traditional literature and they have never yet furthered their second-language skills… but I am a firm believer that nothing you learn is ever wasted. My first son writes fantasy stories in his spare time. His PhD course (mathematics) is attached to a company based in France, and he is expected to travel there periodically. My second son chose his career (veterinary medicine) based on the James Herriott books he had listened to. Just because you cannot predict which knowledge will take on what personal significance and which knowledge will only serve to round out the intellect, doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant.
​
And just because you’ve never met a rhombus since your schooldays, shouldn’t mean they WRONGED YOU by teaching you about it. What sort of person doesn’t feel a certain aesthetic satisfaction in knowing one kind of quadrilateral from another? Or knowing which regular shapes tessellate and how? Or even just knowing how to pronounce the word and use it in Scrabble?

I am even going to argue that actively engaging in a broad and varied education helps to build transferable skills and self-confidence. A young person who has successfully negotiated a wide range of different tasks on and off paper, is probably going to survive an encounter with a tax form. ​